Monday, February 8, 2016

A Scot Goes Pop reader has been doing some detective work into the real identity and whereabouts of J K Rowling's notoriously abusive and misogynistic friend "Brian Spanner". I'll let her email speak for itself, but it's in edited form to avoid any conceivable breaches of privacy.

"On July 7th 2015, Mr Spanner sent this tweet: "Tonight I will be mostly sending weird pictures to my neighbour's unsecured wireless printer."In it you can see he tweets the image of the local wifi networks he’s getting from his mac. (In case you’re not a mac user, I am and can confirm that this is what the network list looks like on one.) So whoever he is, he’s not skint. If you look at the top network, you can see that there is a wee mark to the left of it. This is the back end of a tick, indicating that this is the network he’s actually attached to.There is a website called WiGLE which collates SSIDs for wifi, so I checked this network and it flagged as being based in Ardrossan, next to the beach. It was spotted at this address on the 6th April 2015. Below is the info from WiGLE on it. Beneath the WPA logo are the coordinates.So, being a belligerent and nosey sort of person, I went down to Ardrossan with my laptop to look for it. And indeed it’s still there. It can be detected fleetingly from the main beach road of ************** Road but it can very reliably be detected from a side street called ***************. Map attached and pics of my picking the network up. I have a wifi scanning file that confirms it, if anybody requires proof."

Coincidentally, popular journalist Euan McColm seems to have family that hail from Ardrossan and thereabouts, judging from a tweet on 23rd November 2012 -

Euan McColm :"our dads were saltcoats then ardrossan, i think."

Coincidentally, popular journalist Euan McColm once randomly mentioned the beach at Ardrossan in a Scotsman article -

"I’d have my man or woman outline a vision for the future from Stirling Castle, or Edinburgh’s Royal Mile or the beach at Ardrossan."
Coincidentally, popular journalist Euan McColm was the first person that "Brian Spanner" ever followed on Twitter, out of 300 million or so possibilities.

Coincidentally, popular journalist Euan McColm and "Brian Spanner" both use the C-word on social media far more frequently than the average person. (Come to think of it, the average person doesn't use the C-word at all.)

Hmmm. More than anything, I think this is a timely reminder that coincidences are just far, far more common than most of us realise. For example, did you know that in any given football match, there is a roughly 50/50 chance that two of the players will share the same birthday? With there only being 22 players on the pitch, and 365 days in the year, many people would think that the chances of that happening are only around 5%. But nope - it's 50%.

Outstanding. I'm sure Brian will have an appreciation of the investigative work being put in to unmask him, especially since he's such a big fan of "unmasking" pseudonymous twitter users, sending round private detectives, clyping on people to their employers and so on.

How often does an average person do that? How many average people even red this blog? (sorry, James) In other words if one of those SSIDs gets replaced by another in the next few hours wouldnt that just increase suspicion?

There was a comment on Wings last week mentioning a few things that Spanner had tweeted that might identify him. These included his mother and sister being nurses, he has a young child and he's in his early 40s.

I had a look on his twitter account and found lots of tweets confirming this. I screen shot them.

Next day they had all disappeared.

Now why would Spanner delete them if he didn't think they'd identify him?

This is utterly mental. Man-up. The guy does parody and trolling. Who gives a shit? And people wonder why everyone thinks SNP supporters are nuts and 2.6 million didnt vote SNP in May. Stuff like this doesnt help anyone.

Simon Church and Charlie Adam both have their birthdays on December 10th and both played in our last game together (came on as subs). Another coincidence is that we beat you 2-1 in that away game as well as 2-1 in the home game.

That’s the thing, your ordinary man on the street has better things to do with his time than to troll online as a yoon defending scum and a corrupt and anti-Scottish union. That in a nut shell tells you all you need to know.

It's important that Brian Spanners account is closed and he buggers off. However this kind of thing (detective work) is pretty out of order to be honest. I'm a 100% committed supporter of independence but these kind of actions should not be undertaken. It's on the verge of too much. It's exciting yes to do the detective work but there are a million fuckwits out there and it just takes one to do something stupid with this information however innocent it is.... stuff like this and the yahoos outside the scottish parliament don't really help our case much. Don't flame me guys I'm just saying how I feel.

No-one is saying it isn't rough having that ball sack on twitter, but just think about what someone has done.... Searched up a wifi name, then went to Ardrossan and pissed about outside houses to find where the strongest signal is. It's bad news.

It is too much, being a dick online doesn't mean you should be identified or have anyone round your house. People can say what they like online without living in fear of having arseholes piss about trying to find their house. I am deeply offended by what that prick says online but I don't give a shit who he is, what is important is that people seem to be forgiving his behaviour. Sadly he will get away with it for the most part because now he will be sorry and will once exposed write a column about how he feared for his families safety. You can say it's fine but it's not. It's never going to look good and it should not have been done.

I do tend to go elsewhere indeed, rarely post. Sadly it gets rarer and rarer when I read pish from folk like you. I want indy. but you'll keep us all back and you are far too stupid to see what you are doing. We'll never be taken seriously with people like you hanging around mouthing off. Do I really want indy. yes do I want to share a platform promoting it with you... No chance keep away please.

Haha what an embarrassment. Spanner is just an online joker, no worse than any other online keyboard warrior on here. Have a word with yourselves! "Claire" Robertson was investigated as he was duping people from yes into buying him food etc. Will you have a similar witch hunt for Tories in an Indy Scotland?

Any progressive policies on the horizon to enhance the lives of the less off from the Nat sis. Taxing the rich and middle classes is off the agenda for the Nat sis. Engerland is not going going tae subsidise the Nat si elite anymore. So whit are you Nat sis going tae dae?

I would say that all you seem to have at the moment, unless I can't see it on my phone, is some text and no evidence. Basically you're asking us to believe your word, and that person or persons unknown to us went to Ardrossan and got the SSID linked to a specific street.

Now, it could be that you're sitting on the evidence and not publishing it for fear of recrimination. However, until such times as you put out something concrete then, frankly, it's all looking a bit flimsy. Brian Spanner will (rightly) laugh this off until hard evidence is produced, and not just some claims from a source-free blog.

Hello, Mark. You're quite right that I made a conscious decision not to publish any of the hard evidence from the email. What's left may be flimsy in your view but it does have the virtue of being true. Unfortunately, I'm not a newspaper and I don't have banks of lawyers on hand to reassure me that it would be safe to go just a little further.

That's an entirely fair comment. But, you must realise that until you do produce something hard then you'll be left open to the accusation that you're bluffing. When I published on Claire/Mark I asked myself 'would it stand up in court?' If you can't jump that bar then it's a weak case you're presenting. I don't mean that pejoratively. It's just the way it is.

I'm not sure what you mean "stand up in court" - as far as I can see the evidence that Spanner posted from Ardrossan is very credible and well-researched, but I'm not sure what relevance that would have in court one way or the other.

And, to be frank, when I wrote the post I wasn't in any sense seeking to meet the forensic standards that someone like you might think should apply. I was trying to present my own readers with interesting and accurate information.

Sorry, can someone please recap us on who mark Robinson and Claire and this mckeun etc are . ? Is this an actual journalist with a good reputation explaining what he at least sees as the ground rules? Either side can explain fairly? Or both..

What I meant by the court comment was that it is the standard I wanted it to be judged against. In other words, I couldn't expect the readers to believe it if it couldn't satisfy a judge or jury. When I had all my evidence and put it together I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt (beyond that, actually) that I had the right person.

As stated, at present you have shown no evidence. All we have are words. All I am saying is that until you present that hard evidence then you cannot expect this to be taken seriously.

I think you're being a bit silly here. The claim I'm making is hardly an extraordinary one - I'm saying that he posted on Twitter from Ardrossan, not that he was having an affair with the Pope. I've already pointed out that I wasn't interested in meeting the standards that you think are important, and yes, that gives Spanner an opportunity to laugh it off (although I suspect he would have done that anyway). But I know that it's true, and what's more, he knows that I know it's true. I suspect also that most of my regular readers know that I wouldn't mislead them, so even though I can't expect *you* to take it seriously, that doesn't mean I can't expect anyone to.

Probably because he hasn't ripped off people of money and food. Also because he doesn't groom young boys online. Probably I'd say that had something to do with it.

Also, other than be offensive to men and women (the misogynst accusation is a joke), as far as I can see he hasn't done anything wrong. Sure, he's upset a lot of Nats, and is friendly on Twitter with JK Rowling, but that's hardly a crime.

Come off it, Mark. What about the "Cybernats" exposed by the Daily Mail a couple of years back? What had they done that was so wrong? Nothing at all in some cases, and much less than Brian Spanner in others.

I believe nothing I read in that rag. It is my view that Spanner is sometimes abusive, but his abuse is directed at males and females. It's also funny abuse for the *most* part (ask Mhairi Hunter, who has said as much). Only a moment's examination of his feed is necessary to see that he isn't a misogynist.

'Margaret will stop lying when you pry the tongue out of her cold dead mouth, to coin a phrase'

While I'm not sure if that qualifies as misogynist I do find it vile and abusive, what do you think?

Personally I think both Campbell and this Spanner person are abusive trolls who should be ignored, you may disagree. Also I find the idea that the mainstream media should be reporting on this laughable.

Let's pursue this analogy a little further. You reckon I'm supportive of someone you consider to be abusive. In the Spanner case, what happens now is that I (as a billionaire children's author) bully you into a public retraction and into making a donation to the charity of my choice. The press report the story, say I've "destroyed" you, and fail to mention who or what the dispute was actually about.

Ah but there's a bit of a difference here. I haven't photoshopped your tweets to make it look like you directly support the nasty things Campbell has said. If I had it would be entirely fair for you to demand a retraction and apology.

I don't for a minute think you support everything Campbell says, I'm sure you don't think anyone should 'die in a chemical fire'. But if Rowling is to be condemned for the company she keeps on twitter then surely it is only fair to apply the same logic to you.

You're missing the whole point. You're getting away with criticising me. Natalie McGarry was bullied into retracting her criticisms of Rowling. Do you condemn Rowling for doing that? Do you feel that Natalie McGarry should have had the same freedom to speak out that you are currently enjoying? If not, why not? The 'photoshop' thing is a load of garbage, so please don't insult my intelligence by using that as an excuse.

My apologies, I assumed wrongly that the bullied party you were referring was the bloke that photoshopped Rowling's tweets, he also retracted, apologised and made a charity donation (quite rightly in my view).

Call it garbage all you like but Ms McGarry used doctored images to spread misinformation about Rowling. Under those circumstances I think its perfectly fair that Rowling asked for a retraction and apology.

....and of course Mark. You fail to emphasise the potentially huge importance of Rowling's involvement.

Her association with, possibly a pseudonymous journalist who tweets in less than a politically correct manner, is potential dynamite.

Her holier than though morality could be damaged considerably if it were found out that she was happy to consort with someone she knew was a journalist, together with other journalists who knew.....and that her part in that association meant her ignorance of,let's say, morally questionable repartee by Spanner.

Those are a whole lot of assumptions, Chris. 'Possibly' is the word you used. Unless and until credible evidence is shown on here that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, who Spanner is then all of this is just wild hearsay.

What happens if it is shown that he is just a punter? A lot of people are going to look veeeeeery silly for all these wild accusations.

indeed, all that has been presented is enough information to visit the (now deleted tweet), obtain the list of 8 or so WiFi networks "in the area", each with signal strength and then it's a case of simple triangulation to pinpoint the location that snapshot was taken to within less than 20 metres - even with error taken into account.

WiFi triangulation is becoming very accurate; google use it for their basic "location services" module on Android phones that don't have the GPS switched on.

Whilst SSID's are guaranteed to be unique; some of the manufacturers in the list do use unique SSIDs to prevent neighbours accidently using each others networks during setup. The MAC addresses linked to the SSIDs will be worldwide unique - and I imagine that these were presented to the blog owner.

A simple lookup of 192.com (or any other ID validator) will no doubt produce a list of names and then correlation and elimination can take place.

Whilst I wouldn't trust WiGLE (one of the SSIDs was actually on the beach) the data can easily be verified by a quick walk round the area with a wardriving app. A group of people doing it and sharing their results would improve the accuracy to less than a few metres from the location where the tweet was tweeted.

Sorry, Mark, but you left me with no choice but to delete your comment, because from beginning to end it completely misrepresented my statements (unintentionally, I trust). Your claim that I have said or implied that I'm convinced Spanner is McColm is categorically untrue. Try reading what I actually wrote in this blogpost and others - I'm pointing out that there are a hell of a lot of connections and overlaps between McColm and Spanner. There is more than one way of explaining those connections and overlaps, and nothing I've said has excluded any possibility.

You have also completely misinterpreted the line "but I know that it's true". As should have been blindingly obvious from the context, it had nothing whatever to do with McColm - it simply referred to the evidence that Spanner had posted on Twitter from Ardrossan.

The problem isn't Spanner's unfunny drivel on Twitter. It's the hypocrisy of the media who will piss themselves like excited puppies about "vile cybernats" and politicians who are apparently in cahoots, but are strangely silent on the matter of their beloved JK and other public figures being all pally wally with a self confessed troll (only a shit troll would admit they're trolling). Also strange that nobody in the media is concerned with learning Brian's identity. Must be too close to home eh?

You can tell from the desperate comments on here that a nerve has been touched.

Think some people need to get off Twitter and pull their heads out their backsides. If you want meaningful change, get out in your communities and make it happen. If you want to look like a bunch of children, stay at home on your computer trying to work out who some ned with a few thousand followers is.

Nat Attack : Another comment deleted. Seriously mate, if you keep breaching the moderation policy, I'll have to keep deleting your comments. My rules are pretty basic and generous by any standards, but I do have rules, and they're there for a good reason.

Quite interesting to note the comments on here egging-on the outing of Spanner.

When I exposed Claire/Mark Robertson I was accused by similar types of people (Nationalists, mainly) as being 'creepy'. They lined up to put the boot in. Funny how those comments are absent here, now that the tables are (apparently) turned.

Mark/Claire Robertson is just a random Twitter zoomer with an online persona/pseudonym. Crime of the century.

Brian Spanner is a journalist with some friends in very high places who turn a blind eye to his more questionable output, because he's the jester of their little unionist twitter clique and it's all just banter eh?

Oh, and using publicly available info to stalk someone isn't all that creepy, but sending a private investigator to their door to photograph them and their property and put said photographs online is pretty fucking creepy.